Ah, forget the first paragraph. I just found the section in the (very
confusing - OWL DL? 2? ugh) documentation where they specifically allow
ObjectProperty and class. But I do want to continue (or at least
emphasize) the question of constraining the relators to
ObjectProperties. I honestly do think that such a choice should be up to
the folks using the vocabulary, based on their needs. If BIBFRAME wants
to require IRIs as objects that's fine. But I see the LoC vocabularies
as not being limited to BIBFRAME - or at least, I think that would be a
good approach.
YMMV.
kc
On 10/23/23 7:19 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
Thanks, Kevin. My question, originally, was whether the typing
assigned can be seen as "OR" or "AND". I know that you can define SKOS
entities as objects and as properties and these are not seen as being
in conflict, but SKOS is very clear in defining this, making sure that
it is open. In the LoC case, it is an OWL declaration of
ObjectProperty and the class Role, a kind of punning. It seems to me
that all of the declarations are always attached to the subject, and
therefore using them as objects would trigger inferencing
inconsistencies (OWL tends to be strict). Have you tried that? Or are
you eschewing inferencing, as one often does.
In any case, the big question was using the relators as properties and
the object as a string. There are folks who need to do that, and it is
a shame that there isn't an unconstrained version that would allow
this, since the LoC list is the most complete of all lists we can
find. Declaration as an rdf:Property would do that, and that would
entail less "rule" on the property definition, while users could
define their own more strict rules for their application. Again, this
brings up how far you can go with punning - adding rdf:Property to the
mix would probably just make things more confusing.
I vote for simpler and less constrained at the vocabulary level,
leaving constraints to the application profile level, so everyone can
have the usage they need.
kc
On 10/20/23 11:23 AM, Ford, Kevin wrote:
Hi Karen,
Steve is not wrong, but I think you are talking about two different
things.
Using a string with a Relators property would not conform to how they
have been defined at ID.LOC.GOV. So, the answer to your specific
question is: no, it is not our expectation Relator URIs would be used
as properties with the object of the triple being either a URI or a
string. Only URIs.
But the Relators URIs have also been defined such that they can be
used as a Property or as an Object, which is what Steve was driving
at. We use them as Objects in Bibframe, hence their (additional)
typing as a bf:Role.
HTH,
Kevin
--
Kevin Ford
Network Development and MARC Standards Office
Library of Congress
Washington, DC
-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries <CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG> On Behalf Of Karen
Coyle
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2023 11:41 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] [External] [CODE4LIB] Question about multiple
declarations
CAUTION: This email message has been received from an external
source. Please use caution when opening attachments, or clicking on
links.
Steve, the list doesn't need to hear this, but you are not correct here.
The relators are defined as owl:ObjectProperties (not just
"properties") which means that they cannot take text as objects.
However, I want LoC to confirm that, because this is their doing.
kc
On 10/17/23 8:17 AM, McDonald, Stephen wrote:
It is an inherent problem when creating a vocabulary--should this
set of traits be properties or types? Whichever choice you make, you
face the problem that other vocabularies may choose differently. I
believe this vocabulary defines relators as properties. But they
also want to show how the terms are related to terms in OWL and
BIBFRAME where they are defined as types.
Steve McDonald
steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries <CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG> On Behalf Of Karen
Coyle
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 10:40 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] [External] [CODE4LIB] Question about multiple
declarations
tl;dr: Does LoC intend that its relator properties be used with both
"thing" and "string" objects?
kc
On 10/10/23 8:02 AM, McDonald, Stephen wrote:
That is not correct. The statement
<rdfs:subPropertyOf
rdf:resource="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/contributor"/>
is a single predicate-object statement, enclosed within angle
brackets.
The following statement
<rdf:type
rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#ObjectProperty"/>
is also separate statement, enclosed within angle brackets. The OWL
statement is not part of the subPropertyOf statement. The next
statement is also a separate statement. So we have three statements:
subPropertyOf: DC contributor
type: owl ObjectProperty
type: BIBFRAME role
The term you were looking up is the implied subject of the
statements,
making these RDF triples.
Steve McDonald
steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries <CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG> On Behalf Of
Karen Coyle
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 5:36 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG
Subject: [External] [CODE4LIB] Question about multiple declarations
All,
I am looking at the LoC relators at id.loc.gov, and am trying to
understand the implications of the multiple declarations for
relator terms.
<rdfs:subPropertyOf
rdf:resource="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/contributor"/>
<rdf:type
rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#ObjectProperty"/>
<rdf:type
rdf:resource="http://id.loc.gov/ontologies/bibframe/Role"/>
dct:contributor is not an Object Property; there is no object type
given, so I suppose it is de facto an Annotation Property. I read
the next statement as narrowing, so at statement 2 we have:
subproperty of dct:contributor AND an owl:ObjectProperty
If my reading is correct, it would be a violation of this to use
the relator with a string rather than a thing.
(Stop me here if I'm wrong.)
Then the 3rd statement appears to say that the relator is a
bf:Role, which is a BIBFRAME-specific class. I can't wrap my head
around the functionality of this statement and would love a brief
explanation.
I'm undoubtedly not into BIBFRAME deep enough to grok this.
Also, my reading is that each relator is ALL THREE OF THESE; this
is an AND not at OR. Right?
Thanks for any help,
kc
--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://kcoyle.net__;!!EDx7F7x-0XSOB8YS_
BQ!eHPXLOmgHd34Nkhl7hC1y1HksSXx1U6hRMICVD7hgM2VshIAMS7KC8rwlhpiRDMc
J39slRBrXwrxVIJV$
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Caution: This message originated from outside of the Tufts
University organization. Please exercise caution when clicking
links or opening attachments. When in doubt, email the TTS Service
Desk at i...@tufts.edu<mailto:i...@tufts.edu> or call them directly
at 617-627-3376.
--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://kcoyle.net__;!!EDx7F7x-0XSOB8YS_BQ
!eHPXLOmgHd34Nkhl7hC1y1HksSXx1U6hRMICVD7hgM2VshIAMS7KC8rwlhpiRDMcJ39s
lRBrXwrxVIJV$
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://kcoyle.net__;!!EDx7F7x-0XSOB8YS_BQ!eHPXLOmgHd34Nkhl7hC1y1HksSXx1U6hRMICVD7hgM2VshIAMS7KC8rwlhpiRDMcJ39slRBrXwrxVIJV$
--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net
http://kcoyle.net
